Seven Days

The Pixie

Well-known member
Never thought I would see the day (excuse the pun) when an atheist defends a literal meaning of what is obviously myth, and the evangelical defending a figurative or symbolic meaning. The world has gone crazy!
I am not saying that is what happened, only that that is what the author believed. In that regard I am sure I take the Bible far more literally than most Christians, who will play the "it's symbolic" card whenever they see some text they want to ignore.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I asked two questions. Please answer them.
Ok. Not nouns, wrong term.

The uses of the word yom have different prefixes. The pluralization of each adds a suffix of -im.

Haiyom, baiyom, beyom, miyomim, etc....

As for the day of the Lord, unless you can show that he's going to take several days, weeks, months or years to descend from heaven on his horse, and the saints will tale equally as long on their horses. Revelation 19, I have no problem whatsoever with a 24 hour day.

Erev, and boker. They make a day in Genesis 1.

Abraham was commanded by God to circumcise his male offspring on the 8th day. Noah was in the Ark for 150 days.

So, I'm thinking that unless you can actually show otherwise, I'm not having a problem with 24 hour days. And as such, the Day of the Lord being a single 24 hour day. Although, I'm thinking that it'll only be a few minutes to a couple hours to ride in from heaven to step onto the Mt. of Olives.

Now, what's your answer to my question.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Ok. Not nouns, wrong term.

The uses of the word yom have different prefixes. The pluralization of each adds a suffix of -im.

Haiyom, baiyom, beyom, miyomim, etc....

As for the day of the Lord, unless you can show that he's going to take several days, weeks, months or years to descend from heaven on his horse, and the saints will tale equally as long on their horses. Revelation 19, I have no problem whatsoever with a 24 hour day.

Erev, and boker. They make a day in Genesis 1.

Abraham was commanded by God to circumcise his male offspring on the 8th day. Noah was in the Ark for 150 days.

So, I'm thinking that unless you can actually show otherwise, I'm not having a problem with 24 hour days. And as such, the Day of the Lord being a single 24 hour day. Although, I'm thinking that it'll only be a few minutes to a couple hours to ride in from heaven to step onto the Mt. of Olives.

I think the Day of the Lord refers to the 1,000 year millennial kingdom. A day is as a thousand years to Him.

Now, what's your answer to my question.

What was it? I forgot.
 

SteveB

Well-known member
I think the Day of the Lord refers to the 1,000 year millennial kingdom. A day is as a thousand years to Him.
I wouldn't view 1000 years as the day of the Lord. Especially when Amos 5 says that it's a day of darkness and trouble.
The 1000 year reign of Jesus on earth is the fulfillment of the apocalypso.... i.e., the curtain is pulled back and the truth is revealed in all its splendor.

Amo 5:18-20 WEB 18 “Woe to you who desire the day of Yahweh! Why do you long for the day of Yahweh? It is darkness, and not light. 19 As if a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him; or he went into the house and leaned his hand on the wall, and a snake bit him. 20 Won’t the day of Yahweh be darkness, and not light? Even very dark, and no brightness in it?




What was it? I forgot.
That's pretty pathetic. I thought only atheists did that.
Try reading.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I am not saying that is what happened, only that that is what the author believed. In that regard I am sure I take the Bible far more literally than most Christians, who will play the "it's symbolic" card whenever they see some text they want to ignore.
The author is describing the ”days” preceding the “host of them” (Gen 2:1) referring to angels. So why would the author be associating literal 24-hour “days” with angels? I just don’t see a literal meaning intended here. If these are not solar days then what are they? Arguably seven archangels shining brightly revealing the knowledge of God Most High for the “host of them” or angels to worship forever.

Light is associated with knowledge of God Most High. And it is knowledge of him that is associated with eternal life. Darkness and death would be ignorance of him. The archangels (“Angels of the Presence”) enter into (born into?) darkness and chaos sequentially in order to shine their light and make Elyon known to humanity/creation/world-soul(s).

That is not my opinion alone, but arguably the perspective of the Qumran community found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
 
Last edited:

CrowCross

Super Member
I haven't read all the threads but what I have learned is that a day...YOM...Is just that...24 hours.
The logic is pretty simple to understand when the teaching in Genesis numbers the days as well as brackets them with evening and morning which are terms associated with a one rotation of the earth timespan.

The Bible adds to a 24 hour long period of time when in Exodus 20 the Ten Commandments state:

"8 Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work,10 but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God, on which you must not do any work—neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your manservant or maidservant or livestock, nor the foreigner within your gates. 11 For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth and the sea and all that is in them, but on the seventh day He rested. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and set it apart as holy."

The Lord didn't make the heavens and the earth in six eons. God patterned mans work week after the creation time period (verse 9). Man isn't supposed to work for six eons then rest during the 7th eon

Hebrews 4:4 also has something to say about the days:
For somewhere He has spoken about the seventh day in this manner: "And on the seventh day God rested from all His works."
 

CrowCross

Super Member
There are many indications that the east is young. Here is a partial list.

Biomaterial has been found in Dino bones where a 65+ MY fossil shouldn't contain any.
Zircon Crystal and helium.
bioturbatation.
Polonium halos.
Polystrate fossils.
Carbon still existing in coal and diamonds.
Strength of the earth magnetic field.
Recession of the moon.
Recumbent folds that showed rapid continent movement.
Rapid formation of the Grand Canyon.
Human and Dino tracks in the same strata.
Depictions of Dino's and humans living together.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
There are many indications that the east is young. Here is a partial list.

Biomaterial has been found in Dino bones where a 65+ MY fossil shouldn't contain any.
Zircon Crystal and helium.
bioturbatation.
Polonium halos.
Polystrate fossils.
Carbon still existing in coal and diamonds.
Strength of the earth magnetic field.
Recession of the moon.
Recumbent folds that showed rapid continent movement.
Rapid formation of the Grand Canyon.
Human and Dino tracks in the same strata.
Depictions of Dino's and humans living together.
They've all been debunked.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Boy-oh-boy am I glad to hear that...I can now throw my bible into the trash can.

Thank you for that overwhelming post full of debunked facts.
Try to think. Why it hasn't occurred to you that your list of reasons is equally unevidenced on your part is baffling.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The author is describing the ”days” preceding the “host of them” (Gen 2:1) referring to angels. So why would the author be associating literal 24-hour “days” with angels? I just don’t see a literal meaning intended here. If these are not solar days then what are they? Arguably seven archangels shining brightly revealing the knowledge of God Most High for the “host of them” or angels to worship forever.
I would say the verse is talking about stars.

Genesis 2:1 And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights.

I do not get what you are saying about days here; I see nothing in the verse that relates to that.

Light is associated with knowledge of God Most High. And it is knowledge of him that is associated with eternal life. Darkness and death would be ignorance of him. The archangels (“Angels of the Presence”) enter into (born into?) darkness and chaos sequentially in order to shine their light and make Elyon known to humanity/creation/world-soul(s).

That is not my opinion alone, but arguably the perspective of the Qumran community found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.
There are hints in later OT books that stars were associated with angels - so I think Genesis 2:1 is about stars, but later may have been understood to be about angels. Also note that the resurrected were expected to be like stars:

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
 

docphin5

Well-known member
I would say the verse is talking about stars.

Genesis 2:1 And so the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their heavenly lights.

I do not get what you are saying about days here; I see nothing in the verse that relates to that.
The sun is the brightest star in the sky. But it passes through its own cycles. I think the author was taking natural phenomena and using it to describe heavenly events.
There are hints in later OT books that stars were associated with angels - so I think Genesis 2:1 is about stars, but later may have been understood to be about angels. Also note that the resurrected were expected to be like stars:

Daniel 2:2 Many of those who sleep in the dust of the ground will awake, these to everlasting life, but the others to disgrace and everlasting [a]contempt. 3 Those who have insight will shine brightly like the brightness of the [c]expanse of heaven, and those who lead the many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.
Daniel is an interesting book.
 

CrowCross

Super Member
There are hints in later OT books that stars were associated with angels - so I think Genesis 2:1 is about stars, but later may have been understood to be about angels. Also note that the resurrected were expected to be like stars:
Stars have been presented as angels in the OT.
For example Job 38 tells us:

4 Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?

Tell Me, if you have understanding.

5 Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know!

Or who stretched a measuring line across it?

6 On what were its foundations set,

or who laid its cornerstone,d

7 while the morning stars sang together

and all the sons of God shouted for joy?


The verse above from Job 38 speaks of the creation of the earth. In verse 7 we see the angels singing and shouting for joy.
This would indicate that the angels were created prior to the formation of the earth.
Stars can also be....stars....twinkling in the night sky as depicted on day 4. We can know they are not angels created on day 4 as Job tells us they were created before the foundation of the earth was laid.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Of course it matters what it says! That is not to say what it means does not matter too, but the way I use a text is I use what it says to determine what it means.

There are several problems to the atheist strictly literal interpretation. The most obvious being that so much of the Bible isn't literal, it's figurative, metaphoric or symbolic. Another problem with it is that your interpretation must be harmonious throughout. For example, in this case, as I pointed out, the term day is applied to all six days collectively. The seventh day continued in David then Paul's and now our day. And the language. The six days didn't start until the heavens and earth had already been created. And by the way, I've already won this argument. Really easy. The impossible part is convincing others who don't believe what I'm saying is true.

Where does it say seventh day continues to this day? That is certainly not how I read the text. Where does it say judgement day is a thousand years? And why should I imagine the author of Genesis had even heard of judgement day?

If I can't convince you that day has various meanings, then (yohm or yom) and now, then what makes you think I can convince you of anything?

And it can mean a 24-hour period.

Correct. And as I said, it is used 3 ways in the creation account, that being one of them.

Genesis 1:5 in particular seems to indicate that is how it is being used, as it also mentions evening, morning, the day/night cycle and the first day.

Who was there to see it? Angels. When did it start? After the creation. When was the first literal 24 hours? After the earth Morning/Evening is only half a day. Whet is the time "between the two evenings"? (Deuteronomy 16:6; Psalm 104:19, 20) The morning is when the angels, watching the creation could see what had been done. The evening is the time when they couldn't. It's about stages of accomplishment.


Can you tell me why you think it means a longer period of time in Genesis 1?

I already have.

My guess is because you have decided that the process took longer, and you are forcing your beliefs on the text.

We've been through this. Everyone has biases. To suggest someone else does while ignoring your own is a weakness you should address.
 

Semmelweis Reflex

Active member
Ask them.

I don't have to.

The Jews had three. From about 6-10; 10-2; and finally from 2 till sunrise. By the time of Roman control they adopted the four watches. From sunset to 9; then to midnight, then to 3 AM and finally to early morning.

Oh absolutely! You just made it clear that unless what I think agrees with you, I should expletive myself.

I most certainly did not.

I have a novel idea.

Good, then use it.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
There are several problems to the atheist strictly literal interpretation. The most obvious being that so much of the Bible isn't literal, it's figurative, metaphoric or symbolic.
But conversely, much of it is not. Are you suggesting Christians can cherry-pick the bits they want to take as symbolic, and atheists just have to go with their dictates?

I think not. If you want to claim the author meant this symbolically, you have to make a case for that. And merely saying the Bible is figurative, metaphoric or symbolic in some places really does not cut it.

Another problem with it is that your interpretation must be harmonious throughout. For example, in this case, as I pointed out, the term day is applied to all six days collectively. The seventh day continued in David then Paul's and now our day. And the language. The six days didn't start until the heavens and earth had already been created. And by the way, I've already won this argument. Really easy. The impossible part is convincing others who don't believe what I'm saying is true.
It is harmonious. The seventh day was one 24-hour period, just like the other six.

The evidence for this is that the Jewish week has seven days of equal length. This is based on the creation week, with the seventh day, the Sabbath, being a day of rest.

Genesis 2:2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Exodus 20:8 “Remember the Sabbath day by keeping it holy. 9 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant, nor your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

If I can't convince you that day has various meanings, then (yohm or yom) and now, then what makes you think I can convince you of anything?
You are claiming the seventh day continues even now. You could try presenting Bible verses that support your position.

I believe the author understood the seventh day to be a single day, and if you look just above this, I provided two Bible passages to support that position.

Correct. And as I said, it is used 3 ways in the creation account, that being one of them.
Why should I believe you?

Who was there to see it? Angels. When did it start? After the creation. When was the first literal 24 hours? After the earth Morning/Evening is only half a day. Whet is the time "between the two evenings"? (Deuteronomy 16:6; Psalm 104:19, 20) The morning is when the angels, watching the creation could see what had been done. The evening is the time when they couldn't. It's about stages of accomplishment.
According to tradition, God told this to David, so the answer to your question - as far as the Israelites were concerned - was God.

The first literal 24 hours was from the start of creation until 24 hours after the start of creation. This seems pretty obvious. Here is the Biblical description:

Genesis 1:3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

A period of light, followed by a period of dark. A full day; 24 hours.

I already have.
No, you have just asserted your opinion as though it is fact. You have offered no reason for me to think it is right.

We've been through this. Everyone has biases. To suggest someone else does while ignoring your own is a weakness you should address.
And yet I can supply Bible verses that support my position, and you cannot. Right not it would seem my biases are right.
 
Top